Retained availability

[ladder]

I have a question on minimum availability for retained cover. I am with CFRS and currently am being paid for 100% cover.I have been for the last 3 or 4 years or so. Up until recently I was told that this means an average of around 100 hours per week. We have to periodically fill out an availability forecast which is basically your shift pattern on a spreadsheet which is then held at district HQ. However, I have now been informed that 100% cover is now 120 hours per week ! I feel this is somewhat unrealistic, although not impossible. I asked what the minimum hours were for 75% cover and was informed " there is no minimum for 75%".When I asked where these figures came from I was told "the grey book". Firstly, is this the same for all brigades ? Also, I was under the impression the grey book no longer really existed.If it does, where can I see it ? Simple question you may think but I have asked many and still have no answer.Also, I was told that the " forecast availability " prediction I completed is now part of a " contract " ! I was unaware that this was the case. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

[Pete]

Hi bud,
while the Grey Book does mention 120 hours , I am led to believr that this is a guideline. Currently the Scottish brigades are trialling alternative availability systems, so changes could be afoot in around a year.
Your HR department should be able to give you an answer to your contract questions. Your Line Manager or Station Officer should be fighting your corner to keep as many personnel as possible on 100 %.
At the end of it there's not a great drop in wages from 100 to 75%, I've been there, and it gives you a hell of a lot more flexibility. But , as you know, it depends how much time any one individual wants to commit to the station/brigade/community.
Dunno if thats helped or not?
regards.

[Little phil]

Ladder

I am with cfrs as well as far as i am been told ,FBU point out that 120 hours should be the max per week so you have a rest period. The grey book can be viewed by simply google grey book. My district started all this availability last year and quite simply tryed a bullying type tactic  of scare mungarin etc. We were all told that whatever hours we had declared then if we hit 80% of that then they were happy.So someone who is on say 75 hours a week only needs to do about 60 hours and nothing is said. The bit i dont like is that if you say your declared to do 168 hours but you do the required 120 you show up red on there system and you get yur coller felt. There is to insentative there to do all them hours and give the commitment when someone else takes the p**s and does 60 hours less a week and get about 50 or 60 quid less a month. So its starts to cascade down and i know more FFs who have dropped there cover to 70,80,90 hours now. I do personally think that 90 hours should be the max and there should be more personnel available but as we all know the retained is underfunded and run quite cheaply.

[drifty]

I am on a slightly different contract with my brigade but for 100% contract you are required to show availability of 84 hours 75% is 63 hours and 50% is 42 hours

[ladder]

Thanks for all your advice. Seems there is quite a lot of confusion and differences all around. I still personally think it is a cost cutting exercise. I appreciate your comments that the actual pay difference is only around 50 or 60 pounds a month but multiply that by a couple of hundred or so and it soon mounts up ! I just feel at the minute the Fire Service wants more and more out of its personnel ( wholetime AND retained ), but not giving a whole lot back !! Family friendly though eh !!!

[Benfire]

I'm with Hampshire FRS, I give 75% which is meant to be 90hrs per week, 100% is 120hrs, and I think day cover only is 40hrs.  Some of the older hands have different contracts and give 75hrs/75% or 100hrs/100%, but I've not heard of them being made to change to the new contract.  So far, the 90hrs I give a week aren't strictly enforced, as long as the pump is one the run, the W/M doesn't seem bothered about hrs on call.  Some weeks because of work commitments I've only been on call for 50-60 hrs and nothing has ever been mentioned about it, I guess its just luck on how your RDS is run.

[Midland Retty]

I do 110 Hours cover per week and I get classed as giving 75% cover

In our brigade 120 hours is seen as giving 100%

Would i be right in thinking we are all in the same boat - i.e. because of recruitment problems, staffing levels are low so everyone has to pull in the slack and do more hours with little social time available?

[fireftrm]

120 hours per week is full availability - this represents 48 hours (2x 24 hour) rest periods per week. That is exactly as in the national conditions of service (Grey Book - which very much exists!!!) which the employers and FBU agreed to. So the 'rest' period is taken care of in 120 hours. To provide full availability means 5 x 24 hour periods. This is very commonly provided across the UK, indeed there are RDS staff giving more, though we encourage ours to take the two rest periods. Before the dispute full availability meant 24/7. Restricted is anything less than that, which would include providing 120 hours over mixed periods - i.e. not 5 x 24 hour periods. So working 9 to 5 Mon-Fri means 45 hours off call, 123 hours on, but this is restricted so 75% retaining fee. This member of staff is not providing 5 x 24 hours.

[Little phil]

Conditions for 75% without looking at grey gook can be any amount of hours that are agreed between any individual and the frs. We were once told that if someone could offer 1 hour a day  and that hour meant that the pump would be on the run then they would be prepared to take them on. That was middle management tho. Another thread maybe, but any you girls and boys at any 2 pump retained stations out there. Just would like to know your staffing levels. Ours at mo is 19 with 1 that is long term sick [1 year +] and another that is finnished through ill health [but is currently employed until they find another job] 3 are wholetime, 1is MOD and another for Duxford war museum. Do your maths and on many days we are down to 4, 5 or 6 as we only now have 4 100%ers, yet we get told its not the amount of staff that is the problem but peoples cover. Also add in leave and courses and sickness. Its been like this for years with senior management keep saying we are currently reviewing these issues.

5 and a half years service and just about keepin my head up

[ladder]

Again, thanks for very knowledgeable and precise replies. It appears that 120 hrs seems to be the magic number. However, I still think it is very unfair that Brigades or the FBU agree that someone giving 40 hrs per week cover should be paid the same as someone giving 115 hrs per week ! I suppose I will just have to suck it up though. I am still very surprised that there are many personnel meeting the 120 hr requirement but I have no figures to prove either way. Thanks again folks.

[xan]

The current RDS throws up a lot of issues,with brigades applying different rules etc.Locally, you either contract to do 120 hours (full cover with the 48hr rest break) or 90 hours (75%).The service then expects you to achieve 75% of your 'contracted hours'.So although this seems quite fair, the 75% person who only does 60 hours is only paid 25% less than the person who does 120 hours.To address this issue it is likely that further 'bands' will be introduced.Although it won't completely solve the issue, it will make it fairer.The alternative might be to 'pay per hour on standby', but this of course is open to abuse and difficult to monitor( I've had people 'on call' but not turn in-and when asked why ' only popped out for an hour or so didn't think it would matter').
RDS faces challenges -training,recruitment,retention,fair pay, which are all difficult to resolve, but at least an answer is being looked for in some brigades,rather than being constantly brushed under the carpet.those brigades that continue to choose to ignore the issues will get found out sooner or later-they can run but can't hide.

[Midland Retty]

Again, thanks for very knowledgeable and precise replies. It appears that 120 hrs seems to be the magic number. However, I still think it is very unfair that Brigades or the FBU agree that someone giving 40 hrs per week cover should be paid the same as someone giving 115 hrs per week ! I suppose I will just have to suck it up though. I am still very surprised that there are many personnel meeting the 120 hr requirement but I have no figures to prove either way. Thanks again folks.

Some brigades are now introducing a salary scheme for RDS staff as opposed to pay-per-call out basis. This scheme takes into account the ammount of cover provided - so those who provide more cover get more wonga than those who offer less cover.

But in your scenario if you think about it, if someone gives less cover each week then there is less potentional for them catching as many shouts as someone who gives 115 hours per week, and that how the balance is re-dressed!.

That said if the person who deos less hours happens to be on duty during a typically busy period then they will get the opportunity of earning more cash I suppose.